In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Feb., 16:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > More WM logic > > > > From > > > > i. For every natural number n, d > > is not in the nth line of L > > You should distinguish between your d and my d and between your list > and my list. But you are clever enough to understand that such a > decision made with mathematical precision immediately would kill set > theory.
Such clarity might well destroy WMytheology, but set theory would only be improved. > > > > ii. i. implies that there is no > > natural number m such that > > d is the mth line of L > > Your d(actual) is nowhere.
WM may be able to speak for his own "d" , but not for anyone else's. Wm limits himself to functions from a FISON to a digit set, but cannot limit others as he limits himself. Others are quite fee to map from |N to that same digit set. In which case, WM's claims become irrelevant.
>Of course it is then in no list. > Nevertheless it could be claimed to be in list(actual) because there > is no list actual. Its assumption, like every false assumption, allows > every conclusion. > My d(potential) is not in any line of the list because it is never > completed but every line is completed. Nevertheless my d(potential) is > in the list because the list is not completed. > > My argument is this - and it is obvious: There is no part of > d(potential) that is surpassing every line ogf the list.
Which lines of your list does d not surpass?
NOt the first one. Not the second one.
And for each n in |N , not that one. Unless you can name one, you are making false claims, > > If you want to criticise this argument, you are invited to do so. But > most probably you will prefer to clown around. I will no longer answer > to any clownery but only to arguments with respect to these targets: > > A) There is no part of d(potential) that is surpassing every line of > the list.
No one says that anything less than the whole surpassed every line of the list, but everyone but WM says that the whole of it does,
It does, however, as a whole clearly surpass each line of WM's list. and it is only in WMytheology that all the parts together do not make up the whole. > > B) Try to apply logic without any semantic interpretation
Why should we try to do what you so carefully avoid doing?
> For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating.
But for all n, the open-ended list (d1, d2, d3, ...), having a term for each n in |N, and which is not any more dependent any particular n's than any others, is non-terminating. > > Regards, WM --